A new Tech available MOAB

@black_elk said in Working on a New Map 40/41: Seeking Suggestions:

perhaps with some map making type tutorials in the same way that Pact of Steel 2 taught how to create an xml and such

:+1:

@SS:

Nice ideas for all suggestions posted but way to many things involved here for most people. It’s your game so no knock against it. You want to get away from KISS that’s fine too. I would not use somethings and make it all more simplified. Why not just try the reduced costs and a tech tree for starters?

I had a lot of ideas, and went to write them all down. These posts are the end product of all that. I have tried the combination of the reduced costs and the tech tree myself. But it was playing against myself, solo. So I don’t know how well it would work against a good face-to-face opponent. I liked them, but that’s not saying much.

I do group them into rules I always want to play, and rules I only sometimes want to play. I would list these as follows:

Always
Cruisers; Paratroopers & Cargo Planes; Armored Cav., Troopers, Heavy Art’y; New Unit Surcharge; Revised Strategic Bombing Raid rules; & Unit Price Reduction (I’ve tested the reduction in costs against myself but not the balance of a larger Axis setup). These rules, minus the Strat. Bomb rules, are the core of my original ideas. And these rules amount to 6 new units, a fee that almost never comes up, cheaper units (I have player’s aids with the correct pricing information so that comes easy), and remembering to add a 2 to every die thrown for a result in Strat. Bombing. I don’t think they’re all that much.

I then got some other ideas and wanted to see where they went. Thus, the sometimes or optional rules

Optional
New Research Rules; New Research Tech Tree; New National Advantages; and SF and all of their rules. These rules sound like something I’d really like to try out, but I’d need a good gaming group first. Chickens, eggs, and all that. These rules really re-write some rules for A&A - which can be a good thing if you’ve an established group that is looking to shake things up. I won’t say that tossing a new player into all of these rules would be a good idea. But as they’re options, and listed as such, your group can take what you like and leave the rest behind. As you do.

Once I’m happy with these rules, I would like to eventually write up versions for A&A 1942 and A&A 1940. But first, I want to get them in their best shape for this game before expanding the beachhead.

I hope that clears things up for you, SS.

-Midnight_Reaper

also beware that this file doesnt understand the concept of original ownership.
If Germany captures Tobruk it should revert to Italian control, not become German.

Id really like to know if there is a way to fix this outside of edit mode.

Greetings,

I’m looking for a wider range of researchable technology for my next G40-game.
I’ve already used the “Search”-option but couldn’t find any good results.

Are there any good house-rule versions of the tech-charts with more options?

Thank you :-)
Greetings from Munich.

There are a lot of good ideas here that’s for sure. Some, like IL’s ideas are great theme based ideas that real capture the essence of the China theater and others, like Gar’s are great from a game play mechanic point of view. I think any of them would be an improvement to the existing state of affairs for China’s movement restrictions.

@Yavid:

why not let china place there inf. in any original chinese territory even if they don’t control them. if it’s unoccupied then they gain control, if it is occupied then combat insues as soon as the territory is attacked by an allied power or on Japan’s combat phase which ever one comes first.

I like this idea, but it would need to be controlled. Making it so that the Chinese could mobilize new units (maybe 1 or 2 infantry) in any original Chinese territory that is unoccupied might make this better, and again, a great way to represent the guerrilla and partisan warfare that was a major part of the fighting in China during WW2.

@Young:

Chinese units may move into any friendly, hostile, or neutral territory during the combat or non-combat movement phases. However, they may never enter Russian territories for any reason.

I see the thinking here, but I think its entirely to arbitrary, Japan should not have a way to “opt out” of Fighting China. I think having something in place that would want Japan to keep some portion of China under occupation (I would have thought the victory city would have been reason enough but I guess i’m just old fashioned  :| ). Placing a penalty on Japan for doing so by removing China’s movement restrictions is a good idea and giving China the ability to become more of a threat is even better.

Perhaps making it so that once China captures all of its original territories it’s movement restrictions are lifted. This was Japan will want to keep at least one Chinese territories under its control to keep them in check. However, lets up the ante here, if Japan is pushed off the Asian mainland (for sake of argument lets keep it to all non Soviet land territories) China can place an IC in Shanghai which will be their capital for the remainder of the game and can purchase units normally. This way even if China is able to move and attack where ever she wants, Japan still has a chance to push them back before China gains the ability to deliver the knock out blow to Japan.

and just to note, I would have to believe that by the time either of these instances were to happen, the game would be all but over for Japan anyway.

@Warplayer12:

i was reading the newspaper, en then i get an idea: a continental war. Every continent (Europe, Asia,Africa etc.) gets their own army and fight each other

You could get the Attack and Attack Expansion game from Eagle Games and use that for your map and forces.  You have infantry, tanks, artillery, aircraft, battleships, aircraft carriers, destroyers, and submarines.  The combat system works considerably differently from A&A, and depending on whether you use the basic games rules or the Deluxe Expansion rules, production points work differently too, along with tech development.  I prefer the original Attack Expansion, and I am running a game using a mixture of the basic game, original Expansion, and the Deluxe expansion.  Works pretty well.

And Australia in not one territory but 5.

you have to build bombers to carry paratroopers and you only carry one of them and that can only be dropped 2 spaces away from friendly forces. The bomber commitment alone precludes the issue of “flying shock armies from buck rogers”.  Unfortunately some feel that you should be able to build and use them w/o bombers and i know 100% that this is a broken game, however, the OOB is somewhat balanced.

but if you feel its not balanced you can impose a “training cost” of 1 or more IPC every time you drop airborne, paid to model training of these elite specialists. Also, limit the build of one airborne per turn ( example: if you build 3 bombers in a turn you only can use 1 additional airborne drop the turn following placement and 1 each following turn for the next 3 turns)

This would preclude the really stupid and impossible idea of Germany building lots of bombers and thinking they will have an immediate Sealion because they didn’t buy anything for 5 turns and all of a sudden spurged on bombers as some kind of trick.

It’s d12 not 2d6 so yes you can get a 1 :wink: a d12 is in the shape of a dodecahedron, twelve little pentagons :-)

Anyway, how the heck to you keep track of who has what with all these tech rules in an actual game?